Well, 

 

If I would calculate the 193.000 members of avsim, and each would give $15 for this project..... which is not even the value of a normal addon... then there you've got your 2.8 million..... 

 

however - getting the community together is a bigger problem.... especially if people try to find reasons it's not gonna work.... instead of looking for reasons and way's to make it work.....\

 

I do understand your scepticism... but then again, the glass is either half full - or half empty, its up to you!

 

regards

 

That's assuming every single member is active AND able/willing to pay.

 

Based on the number of responses to it, the 2014 Avsim demographics survey had probably around 3,500 people respond to it. Let's estimate that as 10% of the active user base (to be generous). Now let's assume that every active user (35,000 in this example) donate $15. That's $525,000. Considering that only 3,500 people filled out a free survey that takes 5 minutes to complete, I don't see 35,000 paying anything.

 

10 employees at $45k?

 

I was more trying to prove a point than anything. No doubt the actual salary would be much higher, but I'm not employed full time at any software companies, so I wouldn't know.

The universe doesn't care about your enthusiasm. Either you have the money (and lots of it) or the talent (and lots of it), or you don't. If you don't, it isn't getting done.

 

Well said, Luke.  Guys, there's a difference between being realistic and being pessimistic.  The pushback you've seen here isn't about people being pessimistic - it's not about glass half full, glass half empty - it's about pragmatism and realism, coupled with a bit of "the internet is not always a kind place" caution based on some red flags some people (me included) see in some of the ways things were and are being presented on this site.

 

I'd have to agree with Devon on this.  There's already a well-established community out there surrounding a very viable potential platform in Outerra, and there's a forum right here on Avsim where discussions can take place in support of this platform for flight sim purposes.  With respect to the developer of this new site, it's hard for me to understand what exactly you're offering that's not already in place for these kinds of discussions.  Talk of points systems and rewards and crowd-sourcing when the examples presented are of others' work simply raises those previously mentioned red flags.

 

Not trying to be a negative jerk, and perhaps your motives are entirely to the good (in which case,they'd seem a bit naive), but again... this is the internet and some of the things on your site do raise an eyebrow or two.

 

Scott

Ok, I have read all this...

 

It will not be a cheap endeavour, if it came to fruition or saw the light of day.

 

But... can we, as a community collectively support a new sim to be created using modern engines?

 

I have seen some comments about software development costs, engine costs, aeronautical costs. But, let's not forget, Sub Logic started all of this. Microsoft purchased a license from Sub Logic. Did Sub Logic have all of that? Did Microsoft?

 

All Stephen is trying to do, IMOHP, is see where the interest lies. Eventually, the flight sim community will need to move forward. Not just in terms of we the community in our desired platforms, but in attracting new enthusiasts, new dreamers, new would be pilots.

 

We have, a potential opportunity to have a new sim moving forward with the community's input. Let's just start there and see where it goes. Conversation costs nothing.

Ok, I have read all this...

 

It will not be a cheap endeavour, if it came to fruition or saw the light of day.

 

But... can we, as a community collectively support a new sim to be created using modern engines?

 

I have seen some comments about software development costs, engine costs, aeronautical costs. But, let's not forget, Sub Logic started all of this. Microsoft purchased a license from Sub Logic. Did Sub Logic have all of that? Did Microsoft?

 

All Stephen is trying to do, IMOHP, is see where the interest lies. Eventually, the flight sim community will need to move forward. Not just in terms of we the community in our desired platforms, but in attracting new enthusiasts, new dreamers, new would be pilots.

 

We have, a potential opportunity to have a new sim moving forward with the community's input. Let's just start there and see where it goes. Conversation costs nothing.

 

Well said!

The real costs will be even higher. As well as salary costs, there are the costs of employment - office space, facilities, utilities,  taxes, rents, corporate costs, etc etc. These will typically double the salary to  $250,000.

 

I pointed out earlier that I estimated FSX consists of 20 million line of source code That excludes the other graphics, scenery etc files.)

 

How many man-years will it take to create the 20 million lines of source code and what be the cost? Remember that includes  all the activities  such as  planning, design, test, debug,  and integration - it's not not just writing out the code.

I understand some of the pessimism and share it to a degree, but to a large extent I don't and here's why:

 

There has been a lot of discussion about the many obstacles to be overcome: lots of talk about millions of lines of code, salaries and lots of worst-case-scenario type thinking that seems to ignore the sims right in our midst that have already managed to overcome those very obstacles. For instance, how many dozens of super-high-paid programmers are working on X-plane? Rise of Flight? Aerofly? Outerra? FlightGear?

 

When X-plane found itself faced with a lack of resources to create the type of detailed cities found in FSX, necessity became the mother of invention, and they went around the problem, using new techniques of their own and resources not available in 2006 to fill the world of x-plane with "Plausible" cities just as "Accurate" in their own way using less costly means.

 

Other developers, including Microsoft, if you read the credits for FLIGHT, have used middleware like Unity, Speedtree, Unigine, Unreal engine and others to cut the development time that creating "Millions of lines of code" starting from zero would have necessitated. Even Star Citizen, the most successful Kickstarter of all time, did not bother beginning from scratch, and it's hard to see why a new Flight Sim would do so either. The NextGen Flightsim website deliberately showed possible candidate engines in acknowledgement of that reality, yet we still talk as if things would of necessity start from absolute zero and require FSX and Microsoft scale construction-of-the-deathstar type teams.

 

Also, is there some assumption that a new sim would have to be an FSX-killer right off the bat? That would be unrealistic, and I've seen nothing suggesting that this is the goal.. All that's really required is a suitable modern framework that could be built on. I believe that Outerra is one of the logical choices, but even if that proved not to be the case, there are other possibilities to be seriously considered.

 

I also don't believe that the necessary programming talent is all that daunting a challenge in a world where solutions such as JSBSIM, Havok, Bullet and other open source flight dynamic and Physics solutions are available to, again, cut down on the initial grunt-work. Amazing things are possible now (like procedural graphics) and being locked into an FSX mindset is probably a mistake. As a community we can be more creative than that even if only by necessity! Do we forget than many of the companies that have worked so hard over the years to take FSX to the next level started out as enthusiasts?

 

The only way we can inevitably fail is if we talk ourselves out of even trying.

 

Seven-G F/A-18 Flight Simulator: One very talented individual, and a few volunteers who have not let pessimism stop them. http://www.seveng-f18.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=67&v=Pd4dagAGXsM

 

No Man's Sky: A development team of about 12 people, and amazing results. Think, Innovation.

Well said Devon! The surest way to fail is to not try.

If I had a dollar for every flight-sim that was dreamed about and posted about, I could have retired a long time ago.

If I had a dollar for every flight-sim that was dreamed about and posted about, I could have retired a long time ago.

 

Possibly true, but I think of it this way: Suppose I forked over 15, 25, or even $30 on this venture (assuming it even got that far) and it failed absolutely miserably and went down worse than the titanic, with all hands lost.

 

Well, $20 is about the price of an ultimately forgettable meal at any number of interchangeable chain restaurants that I don't think twice about going to occasionally, and the possible reward of spending that money on something like this would be immeasurably more important to me.

 

Its not really that huge a decision: Life is a series of greater and lesser chances taken for things we believe are important.

Cool!! Please send me $30 to my PayPal account!!

Cool!! Please send me $30 to my PayPal account!!

I am not even sure what that's supposed to mean.....  :blink:

 

But.... Taking what appears to be a needlessly facetious statement at face value... Sure!

 

Create a suitable website/forum, gather interested parties, solicit community debate and participation, and work to present a workable plan, and I will absolutely consider sending you that $30

 

 

There has been a lot of discussion about the many obstacles to be overcome: lots of talk about millions of lines of code, salaries and lots of worst-case-scenario type thinking that seems to ignore the sims right in our midst that have already managed to overcome those very obstacles.

 

You know what they had? At least one person capable of doing the work.

 

They may not have had enough resources to complete the task, but they had enough to at least start. Sure there are engines and existing code that can reduce the amount of work required, but that doesn't do you any good if you can't even do this much.

 

Do we have anyone here who's actually done any 3-D programming, or aeronautical modeling?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

You know what they had? At least one person capable of doing the work.

 

They may not have had enough resources to complete the task, but they had enough to at least start. Sure there are engines and existing code that can reduce the amount of work required, but that doesn't do you any good if you can't even do this much.

 

Do we have anyone here who's actually done any 3-D programming, or aeronautical modeling?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

But isn't that the question that's being asked already? Isn't determining that one of the stated goals of the website?

 

Finally, if no such skills exist in the aviation community, then who on earth created flightgear?

 

I'm forced to wonder what would have happened if Austin Meyer had given into the common wisdom that Blade element theory was unworkable on a desktop, and simply given, in, given up and not even tried.

 

I'm not sure that the Nextgen Symposium is the correct way to go about things, or if it's at all workable. But why such pushback on even just discussing possibilities? Are we afraid of something concrete? Or is cynicism just endemic?

 

Talk costs nothing. *Shrug*

It's very easy to be overly optimistic, but the truth still remains that the amount of funding required to make a truly "next gen" flight sim and within a reasonable time frame is far out of this community's reach. There's just not enough of us.

 

I do find it funny how it's "Well said!" if anyone writes anything super positive, but anything realistic is automatically wrong no matter what.

 

 

I do find it funny how it's "Well said!" if anyone writes anything super positive, but anything realistic is automatically wrong no matter what.

 

Yes. I think what was mentioned earlier stands - there are existing community efforts such as FlightGear - they should focus on those.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke